CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Mayfield House 256 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7DE Mr G Winwright, Planning Policy Team T: 01865 511444 Chiltern District Council Offices F: 01865 404433 King George V Road King George V House Your ref: Amersham Our ref: IMG/LP/1069754 Bucks HP6 5AW
12th December 2016
Dear Mr Winwright
REPRESENTATIONS TO CHILTERN AND SOUTH BUCKS LOCAL PLAN GREEN BELT PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION
Introduction
Carter Jonas has been instructed by Inland Homes to prepare representations to the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Green Belt Preferred Options consultation. The consultation document identifies the Councils’ Preferred Development Options in the Green Belt, focusing on sites of 1 ha or more in size. The document notes that responses to this consultation will inform decisions on which land should be released from the Green Belt, and taken forward in the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan (2014-2036).
The enclosed representations relate to land East of Beaconsfield and South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield. For the sake of clarity, please be aware that Nexus Planning have also responded to the Preferred Options consultation on behalf of Inland Homes, representing their other land interest in Chiltern and South Bucks Districts.
Scope of Representations
The consultation invites comments on the Council’s preferred development options in the Green Belt, the evidence base documents that support them, and views on whether alternative or additional options should be considered.
Accordingly, in the enclosed representations we:
• Address the context for the Green Belt Preferred Options, in particular the evidence on housing need and the strategy for accommodating this need; • Support the proposed release of Green Belt Land to the East of Beaconsfield (Preferred Options 9); and • Set out the case for release of Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield (land off Broad Lane) responding to the Council’s Assessment of the contribution this land makes to the purposes of the Green Belt.
Page 1 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Background
Inland Homes have worked with the Council on the Wilton Park Development Brief (adopted March 2015), and are in the process of preparing a planning application for development on the Wilton Park site, within the Major Developed Site (MDS) boundary.
This planning application is being prepared in the context of the wider plans for the land to the East of Beaconsfield, as set out in the Green Belt Preferred Options consultation document. Inland Homes will ensure that the proposals for development of the Wilton Park site in no way fetter the preparation and delivery of a coherent masterplan for the wider area to the East of Beaconsfield.
A continued open dialogue with the Council and other stakeholders will be key in this regard.
Specifically in terms of the Joint Local Plan process, we responded to the Issues and Options consultation earlier in the year, and have subsequently submitted further information in support of the allocation of land at both East Beaconsfield, and South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield.
To date, our submissions have comprised –
• Submission of a Development Opportunities document and seven separate Site Submission forms (April 2015) – responding to the South Bucks Initial Local Plan consultation and Call for Sites
• Submission of ‘A Vision for East and South Beaconsfield’ (February 2016)
• Submission of response to the Chiltern and South Bucks Regulation 18 consultation (March 2016)
• Submission of updated Site Nomination Forms (March 2016)
• Submission of separate Vision documents for each of the land parcels – ‘Gateway Vision for East of Beaconsfield’ (May 2016); ‘Vision for the Cricket Club Land’ (June 2016); ‘Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield’ (July 2016); ‘Vision for Land South of Wilton Park’ (July 2016).
Our thoughts continue to evolve, as the evidence base and related proposals are refined.
For clarity and ease of reference, we have enclosed with our representation a complete set of the Vision documents previously provided (in bold above).
Representation Documents
There are two Representations Statements enclosed, one for Land East of Beaconsfield (Preferred Option 9) and one for Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield.
The Representation Statements address the Joint Local Plan evidence base and context, particularly in relation to housing need; the planning strategy for the Plan area; and Green Belt matters. The representation documents then focus in on the site specific matters relating to the two development opportunities, with Green Belt matters being the focus for the Land South of Holtspur submission, and Green Belt matters, masterplanning and development capacity being the focus for the East of Beaconsfield submission.
Summary
In headline terms, the representations support the Councils’ commitment to prioritising meeting future development needs in situ, including through a Green Belt boundary review.
REPRESENTATIONS TO CHILTERN AND SOUTH BUCKS LOCAL PLAN GREEN BELT PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION Page Page 2 of 2 of 91 3
CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Preferred Option 9, which proposes a Green Belt release to the east of Beaconsfield, centred on the Wilton Park Major Developed Site, is strongly supported. Beaconsfield is the largest and most sustainable settlement in South Bucks District, and the Land East of Beaconsfield provides the opportunity to deliver a sustainable extension to Beaconsfield, capitalising on existing and planned infrastructure and delivering a wide range of new community facilities and services, including extensive areas of open space.
The Land South of Holtspur makes very little contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, and could accommodate new residential development in a highly sustainable location.
We hope the enclosed representations are helpful and clear, and would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council to support the preparation of a robust Local Plan and related evidence base.
Yours sincerely
Ian Gillespie MRTPI Planning Partner
E: T: M:
CC M Gilpin, Inland Homes
B Johnson, Inland Homes
Enc Representations:
Representation Statement – Land East of Beaconsfield
Representation Statement – South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Supporting Documents:
A Vision for East and South Beaconsfield (February 2016)
Gateway Vision for East of Beaconsfield (May 2016)
Vision for the Cricket Club Land (June 2016)
Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield (July 2016)
Vision for Land South of Wilton Park (July 2016)
REPRESENTATIONS TO CHILTERN AND SOUTH BUCKS LOCAL PLAN GREEN BELT PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION Page Page 3 of 3 of 91 3
CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) SOUTH OF HOLTSPUR, BEACONSFIELD
REPRESENTATION STATEMENT
CHILTERN AND SOUTH BUCKS GREEN BELT PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION
ON BEHALF OF INLAND HOMES Page 4 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Contents
1 Introduction ...... 2 2 Housing Needs ...... 2 3 Joint Local Plan Spatial Strategy ...... 3 4 Land South of Holtspur ...... 4 5 The Green Belt ...... 5 6 Other Development Considerations ...... 10 7 Summary and Conclusions ...... 11
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Consultation Response Form Appendix 2 – Site Location Plan Appendix 3 – Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Repsonse – Landscape and Visual Matters Appendix 4 - Indicative Access Design
1 Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield Page 5 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
1 Introduction
1.1 This Representation Statement responds to the Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Preferred Options consultation document.
1.2 It addresses the housing and development needs in the District, and the Joint Local Plan strategy for meeting these needs. Brief comment is also made on the Local Plan process, in particular the Council’s current intention to move straight from a Green Belt Preferred Options consultation document, to a pre- submission draft Local Plan in autumn 2017.
1.3 The Representation Statement then focuses specifically on the opportunity at Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield, which makes a very limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt and could accommodate new residential development in a highly sustainable location.
1.4 This Representation Statement should be read in conjunction with the previously submitted ‘A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield (July 2016)’. This document has been appended separately for ease of reference. The land has been renamed ‘Land South of Holtspur’, as this more accurately describes the location of the Site.
1.5 A completed Consultation Response Form is attached at Appendix 1.
2 Housing Needs
2.1 There is a significant need for housing in South Bucks and Chiltern Districts, as confirmed by the Council’s current evidence base. The review of the draft Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (September 2016) suggests a need for 14,700 new dwellings in the period 2014-2036. This a small reduction from the previous draft HEDNA findings, which indicated a need for 15,100 dwellings over the same period.
2.2 The latest draft HEDNA predates the recent announcement in relation to a third runway at Heathrow. The economic impact of this proposal will need further consideration as the plans progress, with direct implications for the likely scale of housing need in the area around Heathrow, including in South Bucks and Chiltern Districts.
2.3 Chiltern and South Bucks Councils should acknowledge the additional housing land pressures that are now likely to arise over the Joint Local Plan period, and either build contingency into the Plan, or commit, as necessary to an early Joint Local Plan review.
2.4 Chiltern and South Bucks District Council’s work on housing land supply and development capacity is ongoing. From the work completed to date, the Council’s estimate that they may be able to deliver some 8,900 dwellings over the Plan period, leaving an unmet housing need of some 5,800 dwellings. Through discussions with Aylesbury Vale District Council under the duty to cooperate, South Bucks and Chiltern District Councils are hoping to ‘export’ this unmet need to Aylesbury Vale.
2.5 The discussions around housing need and unmet housing need, must be in the context of Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils’ statement that the need arising in the two Districts should, as a first priority, be met through the delivery of sustainable development opportunities within Chiltern and South
2 Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Page 6 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Bucks Districts (see page 4, second paragraph of the Green Belt Preferred Options consultation document).
2.6 In advance of a complete and robust evidence base, it is too early for the Councils to determine the level of housing need arising in South Bucks and Chiltern that can be accommodated in the two Districts, and therefore, consequently, too early for the Districts to arrive a level of unmet need.
2.7 A further key consideration must be the unmet housing needs arising from other authorities adjacent to South Bucks and Chiltern Districts.
2.8 Slough Borough Council Officers took a report to their Planning Committee on 7th December 2016, outlining their proposed response to the Green Belt Preferred Options consultation document. Significant concern is expressed over the approach being taken by Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils, with a specific request that further consideration is given to proposals for the northern expansion of Slough, combined with selective growth around Taplow, Langely and Iver Stations. Slough Borough Council and Chiltern and South Bucks Councils will need to continue a dialogue under the Duty to Cooperate, but it is clear that there will be sustained pressure from Slough Borough Council for the South Bucks and Chiltern Joint Local Plan to fully address local housing need where it arises, rather than exporting this need much further north into Aylesbury Vale.
2.9 Further, the London Plan is under review, and a review of the Hillingdon Borough Local Plan Part 1 is scheduled to commence next year. Unmet housing needs from these areas could place further housing pressure on South Bucks and Chiltern Districts.
2.10 In light of all of the above, it is considered imperative that Chiltern and South Bucks Councils stand firmly beyond their commitment to prioritise meeting their own housing needs in situ, and take all reasonable opportunities to deliver sustainable development in the Joint Local Plan area.
3 Joint Local Plan Spatial Strategy
3.1 There are fifteen sites that have been identified as Preferred Options in the Green Belt Preferred Option consultation document. It is clear that some of these sites, including the land to the East of Beaconsfield, make a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt; would make good use of existing and planned infrastructure; and are capable of delivering sustainable development.
3.2 What is lacking from the Councils at this stage, is any form of coherent spatial strategy for future development in Chiltern and South Bucks Districts.
3.3 The Regulation 18 Issues and Options consultation document set out a range of Spatial Strategy options, but the latest Green Belt Preferred Options consultation document does not progress matters in this regard. Each of the fifteen sites identified in the Green Belt Preferred Options consultation document could assist in supporting one or more of the Spatial Strategy options previously identified, but at present the list of fifteen Preferred Green Belt sites is just that, a list.
3.4 It is of concern that Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils are intending to move from the current consultation to a pre-submission consultation version in autumn 2017, without having consulted on an outline strategy, and without presenting any form of draft policies.
3.5 It is considered that priority should be given to the opportunities for development within the existing built-up areas of South Bucks and Chiltern districts, whilst protecting townscape character. The pressing need for new housing is considered to be part of the exceptional circumstances case for a review of the Green Belt boundary, with in our view, development sites around the largest settlements in South Bucks and Chiltern Districts needing to form a core element of the Joint Local Plan Spatial
3 Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Page 7 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Strategy. Such land is able to deliver sustainable development, with generally excellent access to a wide range of facilities, services and local employment opportunities.
4 Land South of Holtspur
4.1 Beaconsfield is firmly recognised as the largest and most sustainable settlement in South Bucks District. Paragraph 2.2.9 of the adopted Core Strategy confirms that ‘Beaconsfield has the best infrastructure, including secondary and primary schools, health facilities, community facilities and good public transport services’.
4.2 The Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield (as identified on the Plan attached as Appendix 2) is bound by the A40 to the north, Broad Lane to the east, the M40 to the south and Wooburn Green Lane to the west.
4.3 The site extends to some 6 hectares. There is currently no public access into the site, and mature boundaries severely restrict views into the site from surrounding public vantage points. The site is broadly level, apart from at its southern boundary, where there is a steep bank down towards the M40.
4.4 Access into the site is currently off the A40, with potential for secondary accesses off Broad Lane and Wooburn Green Lane.
4.5 The Land South of Holtspur is conveniently located for access to the good range of local facilities and services available in and around Holtspur. To the south, off Wooburn Green Lane are located sports fields, only a minute walk from the Site.
4.6 To the north (within Holtspur) is a selection of further facilities all within a 5 minute walk. These include a small Spar, café and sandwich shop by the petrol filling station across the A40, along with a Harvester public house and restaurant. There is a parade of shops off Holtspur Top Lane / Heath Road, less than a 2 minute walk away, and more shops (including a convenience store) off Mayflower Way.
4.7 Other facilities include playing fields, a church and community hall also within a 5 minute walk. Holtspur primary and pre-school and a sports hall/ theatre and youth club are located less than a 10 minute walk away.
4.8 Improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists crossing the A40 would help to ensure the integration of development on Land south of Holtspur with the existing built form.
4.9 The bus stops immediately adjacent to the site (off the A40) provide frequent services between High Wycombe and Beaconsfield Old Town (and destinations beyond), with the hours of operation making the services suitable for commuting purposes. There are a wide range of employment destinations along the A40 towards High Wycombe, as well as within High Wycombe centre.
4.10 Beaconsfield New Town and Old Town, and the community uses proposed in and around Wilton Park would be accessible by bus, and would also be within reasonable cycling distance of the site. Beaconsfield Cycle Path Action Group has assisted in ensuring completion of a cycle route from Holtspur Top Lane to the centre of Beaconsfield New Town.
4.11 In summary, new housing development on Land South of Holtspur would be within easy walking and cycling distance of a wide range of facilities and services. The development would make best use of existing public transport services, with a frequent bus service suitable for accessing higher order destinations, for shopping, recreation and employment purposes.
4 Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Page 8 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
5 The Green Belt
5.1 It is clear that there is a significant housing need in Chiltern and South Bucks Districts, with the Councils acknowledging that there are the necessary exceptional circumstances to proceed with a Green Belt boundary review.
5.2 However, we believe there is scope, and a need, for the Councils to identify additional development opportunities, to assist in meeting local housing needs in situ. We particularly recommend that further consideration is given to Land South of Holtspur.
5.3 Paragraph 1.4 of the Consultation document notes that:
‘If the alternative option (to the Preferred Options) is still to be promoted and has already been considered and rejected then the Councils would request that the reasons for rejection are fully addressed as part of a consultation response.’
5.4 This response identifies and seeks to address the reasons for the rejection of Land South of Holtspur as a Preferred Option.
5.5 The Green Belt Assessment Part Two Draft Report identifies the subject site as Land West of Broad Lane (Site Ref 4.142). The site was not recommended for further consideration in the Green Belt Part One Assessment, but is considered in the Green Belt Part Two Assessment because it formed part of a Regulation 18 Built Area Extension Option (Ref No. 2.18), and has also been nominated in response to the Chiltern and South Bucks Call for Sites (Site Ref 4.212). It is identified on Map 31 of the Draft Green Belt Assessment Part Two.
5.6 There are three stages to the Green Belt Part Two Assessment: Potential Boundary Assessment, Green Belt Purpose Assessment and Exceptional Circumstances Assessment.
5.7 The same scoring matrix is adopted in the Green Belt Part Two Assessment as was used in the Green Belt Part One Assessment. If a parcel of land strongly meets a purpose of the Green Belt, it is awarded a score of 4/5 or 5/5, and any site strongly meeting one or more purposes of the Green Belt is not carried forward for further consideration.
5.8 If a site performs weakly against a purpose of the Green Belt, it is awarded a score of 1/5 or 2/5. If a site is judged as meeting the purpose of the Green Belt, it is awarded a 3/5. Below, we review the assessment of Land west of Broad Lane, and suggest that this assessment has not been undertaken in a way which is consistent with the methodology proposed.
Potential Boundary Assessment
5.9 Land west of Broad Lane passes the first test, the assessment noting that:
‘It is possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. A boundary can be drawn between the A40 to the north, the M40 to the south, Broad Lane to the east and Wooburn Green Lane to the west.’
5.10 While the overall conclusion of this assessment is supported, we suggest that defensible boundaries to the north of the site are not required. Development of the site would seek to provide an extension to
5 Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Page 9 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
the existing settlement to the north, and the provision of pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities would endeavour to link the site with the existing settlement.
5.11 However, it is agreed that the M40, Broad Lane and Wooburn Green Lane do provide strong, defensible boundaries to the south, east and west of the site respectively.
Green Belt Purpose Assessment
5.12 The purposes of the Green Belt were set out in the Green Belt Assessment Part One, and were used to assess how strongly the wider land parcels contributed to the purposes of the Green Belt. The same criteria are used in the Part Two Assessment as the criteria against which specific sites are assessed.
Purpose 1a 5.13 Purpose 1a of the Green Belt is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large, built up areas. Land west of Broad Lane is on the edge of Beaconsfield, a distinct, built up area, and has boundaries which could check further sprawl of the town. The Site, which lies immediately adjacent to the southern side of Beaconsfield, complies with Purpose 1a.
Purpose 1b 5.14 Purpose 1b of the Green Belt assessment seeks to prevent the outward sprawl of a large, built up area into open land and serves as a barrier at the edge of a large, built up area in the absence of a durable boundary.
5.15 The Green Belt Part Two assessment notes that Land west of Broad Lane is connected to the large, built up area of Beaconsfield along the northern boundary, which is defined by the A40, and that the southern, eastern and western boundaries of the site are defined by the M40, Broad Lane, and by Woodburn Green lane respectively. These boundaries are all defensible, permanent boundaries against sprawl.
5.16 The assessment goes on to note that;
‘Given the scale of the site, it is increasingly enclosed between the built-up area to the North and the M40 to the south as well as the two B roads on its eastern and western boundaries.’
5.17 It is not entirely clear what is meant by this, but the overall meaning is supported.
5.18 The Green Belt Part One Assessment of Land Parcel 53a, of which Land West of Broad Lane was a part, noted that:
‘The land parcel serves as an additional barrier to sprawl’.
5.19 We welcome the change in the Council’s view, that it is not the land parcel which serves as a barrier to sprawl, but the defensible, permanent boundaries formed by the M40 and the B roads which form that barrier.
Purpose 2 5.20 Purpose 2 of the Green Belt assessment is to prevent neighbouring towns from merging. The Part One Assessment noted that Land Parcel 53a:
‘forms part of the essential gap between the non-Green Belt settlements of Beaconsfield/Knotty Green and High Wycombe, preventing development that would significantly reduce the perceived and actual distance between these settlements.’
6 Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Page 10 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
5.21 Land Parcel 53a covered an extensive area of 185.3ha and extended all the way from the edge of Wooburn Moor in the west, along the southern side of Beaconsfield. We agree that the western extent of that large parcel of land does form part of the gap between High Wycombe and Wooburn Green.
5.22 In the Green Belt Part 2 Assessment, it is noted again that ‘the site forms part of the essential gap between the settlements of Beaconsfield/Knotty Green and High Wycombe.’ We contest this statement, which we feel to be factually inaccurate.
5.23 Knotty Green lies to the north of Beaconsfield, and remains within the civil parish of Penn. Land to the west of Broad Lane lies to the south of Beaconsfield and has no relationship with Knotty Green. We agree that the gap between Beaconsfield and High Wycombe, depending upon the measuring locations used, is approximately 1.0km at its narrowest point. Land off Broad Lane does not contribute to that gap, being further to the east and covering an area of only 6ha.
5.24 Development of Land west of Broad Lane would not reduce this physical gap, and nor would it reduce the perceived gap, with the existing built-up edge of Beaconsfield (north of the A40) continuing further to the west.
5.25 The gap between Beaconsfield and High Wycombe is well defined when heading west on the A40 out of Beaconsfield. There is an extensive and mature tree belt extending to a distance of approximately 1.0km through which the A40 forms a cutting. The western parcel of land in Parcel 53a does contribute to the gap in this location.
5.26 It is noted that Paragraph 3.7 of the Draft Green Belt Part Two Assessment document recognises that the Part Two study considers smaller areas of land than the General Areas identified in Part One. This may result in the need to adjust sub-area scores differently, when these smaller areas are considered in isolation from the rest of the General Areas.
5.27 The assessment of Site 4.212, Land West of Broad Lane, in relation to Purpose 2 of the Green Belt, This is a prime example of where a sub-area should be considered differently from the rest of the general area, but we suggest that this has not been the case. In particular, we note that the Green Belt Part 2 assessment states that:
‘Development in the parcel (our emphasis) would erode this gap significantly and reduce the perceived and actual distance between these settlements.’
5.28 It seems likely that the Green Belt Part One Assessment of Land Parcel 53a has been used as the basis for the further assessment of Land South of Holtspur, and that a proper analysis of the site’s specific potential contribution to the essential gap between High Wycombe and Beaconsfield has not been properly made.
5.29 It is also notable that removing Land west of Broad Lane from the Green Belt for development would not reduce the physical gap between Beaconsfield and Wooburn Green / Wooburn Moor to the south. At its narrowest point, the existing gap between Beaconsfield and Wooburn Green / Wooburn Moor is approximately 0.50km. From the very edge of the Land off Broad Lane to the nearest part of Wooburn Green is some 0.55km. As importantly, intervening topography, trees and mature site boundaries prevent any opportunities for views between Beaconsfield and Wooburn Green / Wooburn Moor, and there is a very distinct sense that one is leaving Beaconsfield before arriving at Wooburn Green. This sense of leaving one settlement and arriving at another would not change following development of the Land west of Broad Lane.
5.30 At present, Land West of Broad Lane is given a score of 5/5 in relation to Purpose 2 of the Green Belt. On the basis of the information set out above, we respectfully request that the assessment of our client’s site is reviewed, and that the score is reduced to 1/5, reflecting the minimal contribution that this area of land makes to maintaining the gap between settlements. This would reflect the scores set out in the Green Belt Part 1 Assessment, which noted that a score of 1/5 would reflect a ‘less essential gap’ between non-Green Belt settlements, which is of sufficient scale and character that development is 7 Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Page 11 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
unlikely to cause merging between settlements or affect gaps between Green Belt and non-Green Belt settlements.
5.31 As a general observation, we suggest that in relation to Purpose 2 of the Green Belt, a site specific assessment has not been undertaken and the general characteristics of the wider land parcel have been erroneously applied to the site in the Part Two Assessment.
Purpose 3 5.32 The third purpose of Green Belt land is to seek to safeguard the countryside. The Green Belt Part 2 assessment notes that;
‘None of the site is covered by built development; despite this it retains an urban character given the proximity of the built up area of Beaconsfield to the north and the urbanising influence of the M40’.
5.33 A score of 1/5 is awarded, reflecting the weak contribution the site makes to this purpose of the Green Belt. We support this element of the assessment, which accurately reflects the current situation on the Site.
5.34 We note that in the Green Belt Part One Assessment, Parcel 53a was awarded a score of 3/5, reflecting the fact that part of the land parcel comprises meadows, pony paddocks and unused fields, and the parcel was judged as meeting that purpose of the Green Belt. The assessment also noted the urbanising influence of the M40 and Beaconsfield.
5.35 The Green Belt Part Two assessment has been revised to be more specific to the Site, rather than the wider parcel of land. This approach is consistent with paragraph 3.7 of the document, which noted that sub-area scores may need to be amended, to reflect site specific circumstances.
Purpose 4 5.36 The fourth purpose of the Green Belt is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. We support the findings of the assessment, which notes that this sub-parcel does not abut an identified historic core, and does not contribute to this purpose of the Green Belt. A score of 0/5 is awarded.
Green Belt Purpose Conclusion 5.37 The Green Belt Part Two Assessment of Land west of Broad Lane concludes that:
‘The area of land scores strongly against one or more Green Belt purposes.’
5.38 The site scores strongly against Purpose 2, to prevent towns from merging. As set out above, we have fully addressed with concern, considering the assessment to be factually incorrect. In summary –
• The assessment appears to still be based on the characteristics of the wider land parcel (53a), which was the basis of the Part 1 Assessment; and • The Assessment has not properly considered the specific nature of this relatively small land parcel; • Development of this site would not narrow the physical or the perceived gap between either Beaconsfield and High Wycombe, or between Beaconsfield and Wooburn Green.
8 Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Page 12 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
5.39 We respectfully request that the score in relation to Purpose 2 is reduced to 1/5. The site scores weakly against all the other purposes of the Green Belt, and therefore if the score were reduced against Purpose 2, the site could, and should be carried forward as one of the Councils’ Preferred Options.
5.40 To reinforce our conclusions in relation to Green Belt matters, EDP have been instructed to prepare an independent assessment. This Assessment is attached in full at Appendix 3, with a brief summary provided below –
The purpose of EDP’s work is to advance the current understanding of the landscape and visual considerations, and provide evidence of the suitability of the Site for delivery of sustainable development. Particular consideration is given to the Council’s Green Belt assessment work.
EDP have developed a methodology for Green Belt Assessment, which is based on the purposes of the Green Belt, or experience in relation to Green Belt reviews of landscape and visual assessment methodology. The Site is scored against a set of criteria for each Green Belt purpose.
The grading of overall scores reflects the contribution the site makes towards meeting the purposes of the Green Belt. This ensured that, whilst the NPPF does not require all five purposes, or tests, to be met simultaneously, the extent to which a site contributed to the criterion of a specific purpose will better inform the decision for it to be removed from the Green Belt, or retained within it.
The findings are presented in the Green Belt Assessment Table at Appendix 3 – Appendix EDP 2. A score of “1” indicates no contribution to that Green Belt Purpose; “2” a limited contribution to that Green Belt purpose; and “3” a strong contribution to that Green Belt purpose.
The assessment of how the Site and its features contribute towards the openness of the Green Belt and the potential to create a permanent boundary, should it be taken out of the designation, finds that in terms of Green Belt:
• Purpose 1 – there would be no reduction in perceived openness as the open land within the site is not visible to the public other than a glimpse through the security gate at the field entrance. The site is bordered by strong defensible boundaries on all sides and development would not therefore increase susceptibility to unrestricted sprawl; • Purpose 2 – development of the site would not bring the settlement of Holtspur, Beaconsfield closer to Wooburn Green, the closest distance between the two, currently being around 460m and the closest distance between the site and the edge of Wooburn Green being around 560m. This, together with the sense of separation brought by the M40 and further tree belts and topography beyond to the south, are such that it is considered there would be no merging of the settlements; • Purpose 3 – the site does not display typical characteristics of open countryside, being visually screened from its surroundings and more closely related to the settlement edge than the more open countryside beyond the M40 to the south; and • Purpose 4 – due to the site’s exiting containment and intervening development, topography and woodland, development of the site will not alter the character or setting of the historic cores of any of the settlements in the locality.
5.41 The conclusion in relation to Purpose 2 fully supports our position - that the Land South of Holtspur makes only a limited contribution to the purpose of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another.
9 Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Page 13 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
6 Other Development Considerations
6.1 The Councils’ evidence base does not provide any further assessment of the Land South of Holtspur, in terms of its accessibility and deliverability.
6.2 Section 4 of this Representation Statement confirms that Land South of Holtspur is sustainability located, with opportunities for walking and cycling to a wide range of local facilities and services. There is also a frequent bus service, with bus stops immediately adjacent to the site.
6.3 In terms of deliverability, the previously submitted ‘Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield provides an overview of the development considerations associated with the subject land. In summary:
• Trees and Ecology – The land does not fall within, or lie immediately adjacent to, any known statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations. The land largely comprises semi- improved grassland and scattered scrub, likely to be of no more than low ecological value. Hedgerows, semi-mature tree lines, and areas of tree cover bound the site, and it these areas that are likely to be of greater ecological value. There is a large oak in the middle of the site that should be retained.
A sensitive development that retains the boundary planting can be readily accommodated in ecological terms (thereby relieving development pressure on more ecologically sensitive areas of land).
• Highways and Access - The roundabout to the southeast of the Harvester Public House can be used to provide a principal access into the Site. Further technical work undertaken by Phil Jones Associates shows clearly that a four-arm roundabout can be accommodated within the existing highway at the junction of Holtspur Top Lane and the A40 London Road. This roundabout has been fully designed in keeping the standards and guidance given within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges as set out in TD54/07 Table 6/1. The design allows for visibility at the junction of 2.4m x 40m, as set out in standards and maintains a roundabout of dimensions as currently provided.
A Plan showing the attached access arrangement is attached as Appendix 4 (Drawing 01/A).
Land south of Beaconsfield also benefits from possible vehicular access points to the east (onto Broad Lane) and to the west (onto Wooburn Green Lane). Visibility is afforded at both locations for the provision of a standard priority junction.
• Noise and Air Quality – There are potential traffic noise and air quality issues associated with the M40 to the south of the site. A buffer zone, potentially incorporating an acoustic barrier will need to be incorporated into the development proposals.
6.4 Taking into account the above development considerations, Land South of Holtspur is considered to have the capacity to accommodate some 200 dwellings, with a mix of dwelling types and sizes. There are no insurmountable development constraints.
10 Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Page 14 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
7 Summary and Conclusions
7.1 This Representation Statement responds to the Chiltern and South Bucks Green Belt Preferred Options consultation document. It addresses the housing and development needs in the District, and the Joint Local Plan strategy for meeting these needs. Importantly, it sets out a strong case for release of Land South of Holtspur from the Green Belt, and the allocation of the land for development.
7.2 There is a significant and pressing need for new housing in South Bucks and Chiltern Districts.
7.3 We fully support the priority given to meeting housing needs where they arise, and with this in mind, would strongly urge Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils to identify additional development opportunities, where such land is sustainably located, is deliverable and makes a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt.
7.4 It is of concern that the Councils have not presented the Preferred Green Belt Options alongside any form of Spatial Strategy, particularly when the current intention is to progress to a pre-submission draft Local Plan without any further consultation.
7.5 Inland Homes control Land South of Holtspur. The land is within easy walking and cycling distance of a wide range of facilities and services, adjacent to the largest and most sustainable settlement in South Bucks District. The development would make best use of existing public transport services, with a frequent bus service suitable for accessing higher order destinations, for shopping, recreation and employment purposes.
7.6 A review of the main development considerations, including access, ecology and noise and air quality, has demonstrated that there are no insurmountable development constraints.
7.7 It would appear that the only reason Land South of Holtspur has not been identified as a Preferred Option in the Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation document, is that the Council believe that the site has an important role to play in preventing Beaconsfield from merging with Wooburn Moor. We believe this matter has been incorrectly assessed by the Councils, with development of the Site not reducing the actual or perceived gap between Beaconsfield and Wooburn Green.
7.8 Indeed, existing mature boundaries severely restrict any intervisibility with nearby vantage points.
7.9 To conclude, Land South of Holtspur is considered to have the capacity to accommodate some 200 dwellings, with a mix of dwelling types and sizes. There are no insurmountable development constraints, and a proper assessment of the Site confirm that it makes a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt.
7.10 We respectfully request that Land South of Holtspur is removed from the Green Belt and allocated for residential development.
11 Land South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Page 15 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Appendix 1 – Consultation Response Form
Page 16 of 91 Classification:CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) PART A – YOUR DETAILS
Are you:
An Individual An Organisation Other (please specify)
Personal Details* Agent’s Details (if applicable)
**Title Inland Homes Mr
**First Name Ian
**Last Name Gillespie
Job Title Partner (if on behalf of an organisation)
Organisation Carter Jonas (if applicable)
**Address C/o Agent
Telephone Number
**Email Address
*if an agent is appointed, you may wish to complete only the title and name boxes and, if applicable, the organisation box but please complete the full contact details for the agent.
**Name and either email or address required if you wish to be added to the consultation database (see below).
Consultation Database (Mailing List) The Councils have a Consultation Database (mailing list) used to keep individuals and organisations informed about Planning Policy Documents across both Council areas. Documents include: the Local Plan, Supplementary Planning Documents and Neighbourhood Plans, (please note some plans may not be applicable to your area).
Chiltern District Council and South Bucks District Council are the Data Controllers for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998. Individuals and organisations on the Planning Policy Consultation Database will only be contacted by the Councils in relation to the preparation and production of planning policy documents. The Councils will not publish the names of those individuals on the database but may publish names of statutory bodies and organisations at certain stages of the Local Plan process. Please indicate if you want to be added to the joint consultation database (tick box below). Please note: you do not need to tick this box if you received a letter or email notification from the Councils prior to the start of the consultation, as you are already registered.
Page 17 of 91 Classification: OFFICIAL 2 Classification:CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
PART B – RESPONSE
Green Belt Options – Please Provide your Comments The Councils have concluded that land within the Green Belt will need to be released in order to contribute to meeting development needs to 2036. This is despite maximising opportunities on ‘brownfield land’ or sites within the built areas and on previously developed land in the Green Belt.
The Councils have identified 15 preferred options for development in the Green Belt after taking account of views expressed in a consultation earlier this year and testing a full range of options. All of these preferred options if suitable for development will be needed to contribute to our development needs. They are ‘preferred’ options at this stage as work is on-going to test their suitability.
Further testing following this consultation will establish what infrastructure (e.g. highway improvements, schools, medical facilities etc.) will be needed to support the options moving forward taking into account current pressures and circumstances.
We are consulting on these 15 preferred options to: a) Seek views to help determine their suitability for development; b) Help understand views on what type of development should be sought if suitable and what type of requirements (other than infrastructure) should be secured as part of development; c) Enable comments on the draft technical work supporting the selection of the preferred options; and d) Provide the opportunity for alternative options to be put forward.
Evidence and background documents are available here: www.chiltern.gov.uk/planning/localplan2014- 2036/evidence and www.southbucks.gov.uk/planning/localplan2014-2036/evidence.
When commenting please clearly indicate which preferred option(s) you are commenting on.
Please do not provide any personal information you do not want to be made publically available as these comments may be published at a later date.
See Representation Statement - South of Holtspur, Beaconsfield
Page 18 of 91 Classification: OFFICIAL 3 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Appendix 2 – Site Location Plan
Page 19 of 91 Path:CLASSIFICATION: M:\Mapping Jobs\Oxford\Planning\1069754 OFFICIAL Wilton Park\Beaconsfield SLP\1069754-15-01 Beaconsfield.mxd PORep1904 (REDACTED)
INSET 1:2500 0 25 50 75 Metres
A 40
103.7m 102.3m
103.8m Shelter
Mast
Map Centre 492,830 189,713
Mast
105.3m 6 ha
E N 14.82 ac A
L
N
E
E
R
G
N
R
U
B
O
O
W
104.9m
! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !
Mayfield House, 256 Banbury Rd Oxford OX2 7DE T: 01865 511444
Client: Inland Homes Ltd Project: Land south of Holtspur Beaconsfield Title: Site Location Plan
Scale: 1:7500@A3 Date: 12 December 2016 Drawn by: KU Dwg no: 1069754-15-01
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright 2016. Carter Jonas LLP ES100021719 Page 20 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Appendix 3 – Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Repsonse – Landscape and Visual Matters
Page 21 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Land South of Holtspur
Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters
Prepared by: The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd (EDP)
On behalf of Inland Homes plc
December 2016 Report Reference EDP3758_01a
Page 22 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Contents
Section 1 Introduction ...... 1
Section 2 Landscape Related Designations and Policy ...... 3
Section 3 Landscape Character and Visual Considerations ...... 9
Section 4 Green Belt Assessment ...... 13
Section 5 Conclusions ...... 19
Appendices
Appendix EDP 1 Assessment Methodology and Criteria
Appendix EDP 2 Green Belt Analysis Table
Plans
Plan EDP 1 Landscape Designations and Considerations (EDP3758/01a 09 December 2016 EB/FM)
Plan EDP 2 Photoviewpoint Locations (EDP3758/04 07 December 2016 EB/FM)
Photoviewpoints
Photoviewpoint EDP 1 View from A40 between Woodburn Green Lane and Holtspur Top Lane looking south east
Photoviewpoint EDP 2 View from A40 west of Broad Lane looking south west
Photoviewpoint EDP 3 View from bridge over M40 on Broad Lane (also route of The Chilternway long distance footpath) looking west
Photoviewpoint EDP 4 View from bridge over M40 on Woodburn Green Lane looking north east
Photoviewpoint EDP 5 View from A40 north of South Drive looking west (EDP3758/03a 09 December 2016 JTF/FM)
Page 23 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
This version is intended for electronic viewing only For EDP use Report no. L_EDP3758_01_DRAFT
Author Emma Baker Peer Review Fiona Mckenzie Formatted Charlee Gaisford Proofed Emma Read Proof Date 09 December 2016
Page 24 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
This page has been left blank intentionally
Page 25 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Section 1 Introduction
Introduction
1.1 This briefing paper has been prepared, on behalf of Inland Homes plc by The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd (EDP), to provide an overview of the landscape and visual aspects of Land South of Holtspur (the site).
1.2 The purpose of EDP’s work is to advance the current understanding of the landscape and visual considerations and provide evidence of the suitability of the site for sustainable development in this regard.
1.3 EDP is an independent environmental consultancy providing advice to landowner and property development clients in the public and private sectors in the fields of landscape, ecology, heritage, arboriculture and masterplanning. The company operates throughout the UK from offices in Cirencester, Cardiff and Shrewsbury. Details can be obtained at www.edp-uk.co.uk.
1.4 This preliminary landscape and visual appraisal has been informed by a desk study and a site walkover, undertaken on 16 November 2016 and 28 November 2016.
The Site
1.5 The site lies at the southern edge of Holtspur on the western edge of the town of Beaconsfield within South Bucks District. It comprises an area of rough grassland with tree belts along its northern and eastern boundaries and hedgerows to the west and south. A single mature tree is located at its centre, which, with reference to the historic map of 1875, indicates that this is located on the likely alignment of a former hedgerow field boundary that ran north-south across the site.
1.6 The site is enveloped by road routes of varying grades, with the M40 corridor and associated vegetation containing the southern boundary; the B4440 (Wooburn Green Lane) to the west; Broad Lane to the east; and the A40 to the north with the settlement of Holtspur and Beaconsfield immediately beyond.
1.7 The character of the site is heavily influenced by both settlement and transport routes as well as the roadside boundary vegetation, which serves to enclose it visually from the surrounding area.
1 Page 26 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
This page has been left blank intentionally
2 Page 27 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Section 2 Landscape Related Designations and Policy
2.1 Landscape related designations within 3km of the site are shown on Plan EDP 1. In summary:
The site falls within The Metropolitan Green Belt;
The site does not lie within, or within view of, a registered park and garden;
The site does not lie within a conservation area, nor does it contain any listed buildings;
There is no ancient woodland within or adjacent to the site; and
There is no public right of access onto the site.
National Designations
2.2 The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt, where its boundary meets the southern settlement edge of Beaconsfield, which falls outside the designation.
Green Belt
2.3 As set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. As such, Green Belt is a planning policy designation rather than a landscape designation based on landscape character and value.
2.4 NPPF paragraph 80 sets out five purposes of the Green Belt, which are listed below:
“To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.”
3 Page 28 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
2.5 The NPPF sets out guidelines for local planning authorities in relation to Green Belts including the desire to plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, looking for opportunities to provide access, outdoor sport and recreation and to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity or to improve damaged and derelict land.
2.6 Guidance in paragraphs 84 and 85 makes clear that, when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas and towns and villages within the Green Belt or towards locations outside the Green Belt boundary. This will be considered further in the Planning Statement accompanying the consultation response.
2.7 Also of relevance to this report is guidance in paragraph 85 with regard to defining boundaries, which states that local authorities should ‘inter alia:’
Not include land that it is unnecessary to keep permanently open; and
Define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.
2.8 The site is identified within Appendix 5, Volume 5 – Section 4 Areas of the Chiltern District Council and South Bucks District Council Green Belt Assessment Part Two Draft Report (October 2016) as a site nomination for potential removal from the existing Green Belt designation, reference 4.212 Land West of Broad Lane, Beaconsfield. This assessment of the site and its boundary notes:
“It is possible to identify a boundary that is permanent and defensible in accordance with NPPF requirements. A boundary can be drawn between the A40 to the north, the M40 to the south, Broad Lane to the east, and Woodburn Green Lane (B4440) to the west.”
2.9 However, the site did not progress to the Green Belt Preferred Options Stage as the assessment also concluded that the site performs strongly against Green Belt Purpose 2, forming part of the essential gap between the settlements of Beaconsfield/Knotty Green and High Wycombe. The assessment concludes that:
“Currently the gap between settlements either travelling from the A40 to the east or Wooburn Green to the south is approximately 1km (approximately 800m as the crow flies). Development in the parcel would erode this gap significantly and reduce the perceived and actual distance between these settlements”.
2.10 These findings do not appear to have been made with regard to the landscape and visual context of the area, which, as a result of strong visual barriers, has a very different sense of separation to that which is described in Appendix 5 of the draft Green Belt Assessment, Part 2, described above.
4 Page 29 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
2.11 To confirm these findings in landscape and visual terms, a further review has been carried out by a landscape professional to provide additional evidence as to the appropriateness of the site as a Green Belt release in the Final Draft of the Local Plan.
Registered Park and Garden
2.12 Hall Barn Registered Park and Garden (RPG) (Grade II*) falls some 1.04km to the east and south-east of the site, but is not visible from it due to intervening tree belts along the southern boundary of the site with the M40 motorway, as well as further tree belts beyond the motorway to the south.
Local Policy
2.13 Local landscape policy of relevance to the site is contained within the saved policies of the Local Plan for South Bucks (adopted 1999) and the Core Strategy (adopted 2011). The Emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan (2014-2036) is in its early stages. The councils have carried out their Initial (Regulation 18) Consultation Incorporating Issues and Options on the emerging Local Plan and now, between 31 October and 12 December 2016, are carrying out consultation on Preferred Green Belt Options.
5 Page 30 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Figure EDP 2.1: Extract of online South Bucks District Development Plan comprising South Bucks Core Strategy and Policies Map adopted in 2011 and ‘saved’ policies in the Adopted South Bucks District Local
2.14 Adopted and saved policies in relation to the Green Belt include Policy GB1 ‘Green Belt Boundaries and the Control over Development in the Green Belt’, which aims to protect the GB through a general presumption against development within it. However, it acknowledges that some development is appropriate, such as: buildings that are reasonably required for agriculture; buildings to provide essential facilities; mineral workings and subsequent restoration; cemeteries; limited extension of existing dwellings; limited infilling within the areas identified in Green Belt Policies; and change of use of buildings. Development falling into the above development categories will only be permitted where they “would not compromise the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and which would permanently retain its open and undeveloped character” and “the proposal would not adversely affect the character or amenities of the Green Belt”.
6 Page 31 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
2.15 The site does not fall within or contain any conservation areas (CA). However, two CAs fall within 2km of the site, the closest some 770m to the north. Policy C1: ‘Development within a Conservation Area’, as the name suggests, relates predominantly to development within the boundary of CAs. However, it does note that proposals should “preserve or enhance important features which contribute to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area including:-…i) views into or out of the Conservation Area,...”, and is therefore potentially relevant. However, the site visit has confirmed that there is no apparent intervisibility between the CAs and the site, and so it is considered that development of the site will not ‘offend’ this policy.
2.16 In August 2016, the Secretary of State for Transport issued an updated Safeguarding Direction to protect the proposed route of the HS2 scheme through the District. The Council will have to show the safeguarded area on its new Policies Map of the Emerging Local Plan. In the meantime, the safeguarded area can be seen on the HS2 website1. Due to the distance of the route from the site and the lack of visibility to it, established during the site visit, it is not considered further here.
1 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545401/LWM-HS2-PL-MAP-000- 000176-P02_Volume_2WM.pdf accessed 29.11.16)
7 Page 32 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
This page has been left blank intentionally
8 Page 33 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Section 3 Landscape Character and Visual Considerations
National Character
3.1 The site falls within Natural England’s National Character Area (NCA) No 115 ‘Thames Valley’, which is briefly described as “a mainly low-lying, wedge-shaped area, widening from Reading, which includes Slough, Windsor, the Colne Valley and the southwest London fringes”, and identifies that “the catchment of the River Thames and its tributaries drain from the surrounding areas and provide strong links with many of the neighbouring NCAs”. The key characteristics of this NCA, of relevance to the site, are:
“Flat and low-lying land, rising to low, river-terraced hills...;
Woodlands characterise the north-western area, with the wooded character extending up to the southern edge of the Chiltern Hills;
Pockets of woodland, open grassland, parkland, wetlands and intimate meadows provide escape and tranquillity;
Farming is limited…grazed pasture is the major land use within a generally open, flat and featureless landscape. The field pattern is medium-scale and irregular, with smaller fields to the west;
Towards London in the east, the natural character of the area is overtaken by urban influences: a dense network of roads (including the M25 corridor)…pylon lines…; and
The area has an urban character, and there are very few villages of more traditional character, although almost half of the area is greenbelt land…”.
The Buckinghamshire Landscape Plan
3.2 The NCAs are broken down to a more detailed level at county scale, with The Buckinghamshire Landscape Plan providing a broad brush character assessment of the Buckinghamshire landscape, carried out by Hyder Consultants in 2000. The plan has since been superseded by the more detailed Buckinghamshire district Landscape Character Assessments (LCAs) completed in 2008 and 2011.
South Bucks District Landscape Character Assessment
3.3 The South Bucks Landscape Character Assessment was prepared for Buckinghamshire County Council and South Bucks District Council by Land Use Consultants in 2011. This assessment uses a format consistent with the Aylesbury Vale, Wycombe and South Bucks
9 Page 34 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Landscape Character Assessment providing an integrated Landscape Character Assessment for the entire county of Buckinghamshire.
Figure EDP 2: South Bucks Landscape Character Assessment ‘Figure 3.2: South Bucks Classification’ Extract
Map Key: Red: LCT22: Mixed Use Terrace, LCA22.1: Beaconsfield Grey: Settlement Light Blue: LCT19: Settled River Valley, LCA19.1: High Wycombe
3.4 There are nine Landscape Character Types (LCT) across the District, each of which contains between one and three LCAs. The site falls at the western limit of the relatively extensive LCA 22.1: Beaconsfield within LCT 22: Mixed Use Terrace. Settlement lines the northern site boundary and non-host landscape character unit LCA 19.1 High Wycombe, within LCT 19: Settled River Valley, which lies adjacent to the site’s south-western corner.
3.5 There is no intervisibility between the site and these wider landscape character units, and it is considered that there will be little effect on them as a result of development of the site.
3.6 LCA 22.1 Beaconsfield Mixed Use Terrace occupies the higher ground above the Alder Bourne River valley to the east and the River Wye valley to the west. The boundaries are largely based on topography, geology and land use.
3.7 The LCA is described as a large scale, mixed use elevated plateau with a varied and diverse landscape made up of a mosaic of open farmland (predominantly arable), undulating
10 Page 35 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
parkland and woodland, interspersed by development including industrial workings and transport corridors. Large scale open fields generate occasional long views, which contrast with areas of enclosure associated with and created by woodland. Large blocks of woodland, and smaller wooded areas are located throughout the plateau. The area is dissected by several major transport corridors, which fragment the landscape with strong visual and audible impact. However, away from these areas a tranquil landscape exists. The LCA presents a highly varied and disparate landscape, the contrasting land uses and land cover of which create a landscape that is visually busy and lacking unity.
3.8 The strength of character and intactness of the Beaconsfield Mixed Use Terrace is weak. “High presence of human development reduces the distinctive character of the landscape.”.
3.9 The Strategy/Vision for the Beaconsfield Mixed Use Terrace is to “Conserve and protect the mosaic of woodland, open farmland and parkland, and to maintain the remaining areas of tranquillity.”
3.10 The Landscape Guidelines for the Beaconsfield Mixed Use Terrace include:
Conserve the areas of woodland;
Promote appropriate management of arable farmland;
Conserve and manage hedgerow boundaries;
Consider opportunities for further tree and woodland planting to contain and reduce visual and audible impact of modern development;
Maintain open views across fields, and monitor the introduction of vertical infrastructure;
Conserve the low density of dispersed settlement;
Monitor the further development of busy transport corridors; and
Restoration of mineral extraction sites.
EDP Site Character and Visual Assessment
3.11 This section should be read in conjunction with Plan EDP 2 and Photoviewpoints.
3.12 The site currently comprises one rough grassland field with scrubby vegetation and a single mature tree. It is extremely well contained on all four sides by boundary vegetation, which serves to isolate it from its surroundings as demonstrated by Photoviewpoints EDP 1, 2, 3 and 4.
11 Page 36 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
3.13 With reference to the historic map of 1875, the site formed the northern half of two field parcels, which extended further south than the existing southern boundary. These fields were truncated by the building of the M40 motorway in the late 1960s, which now forms the southern boundary of the site. The rural character of the field parcels was essentially eroded by the construction of the motorway, as it served to effectively sever the northern part of the fields from the wider countryside. This physical severance has increased over time to include full visual severance as the boundary tree belts that line the embankments on both sides of the motorway have matured over the past 50 years.
3.14 The character of the site and its immediate surroundings is consistent with the published assessments outlined above, which recognise the fragmentation of the landscape locally and the visual and audible effects of the road network in the area. The lack of unity in the landscape is evident in the immediate vicinity of the site, where built settlement, transport corridors, gravel workings, remnant field parcels and urban edge uses combine with tree belts and pockets of woodland with little visual prospect, creating poor legibility and limited cohesion of landscape type.
3.15 The site itself is no longer in agricultural use and the central hedgerow field boundary has been removed. It therefore no longer has the characteristics and appearance of the wider countryside beyond the site and the M40 to the south.
3.16 In visual terms, the only public view into the site is through the security gate on the A40 (see Photoviewpoint EDP 1). Given this visual context, the site itself makes no contribution to the ‘rural’ or countryside character of the surrounding area. It is considered that development of the site could occur with minimal visual effect if desired, development sitting behind the dense boundary vegetation on all four sides. This could occur in a similar character to development further along the A40 to the east, where properties on South Drive are located beyond a roadside tree belt with limited intervisbility between the road and the properties beyond (see Photoviewpoint EDP 5).
12 Page 37 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Section 4 Green Belt Assessment
4.1 This Green Belt Assessment has been undertaken by a Chartered Landscape Architect and follows the assessment criteria and methodology outlined below.
Assessment Criteria
4.2 As noted in the NPPF, Paragraph 80 and Section 2 above, the Green Belt serves five purposes. For each NPPF purpose, criteria have been determined that allows for a more comprehensive analysis to be undertaken, in landscape and visual terms, of the contribution the site makes to the function of the Green Belt in this location. The criteria for each purpose is described in more detail below.
Purpose 1: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
4.3 This is a test that considers whether any built form is contained within the site or if the site is able to prohibit further development. Commonly this is ribbon development, but may also be piecemeal development in isolated areas or along settlement edges. A site may have already have been compromised by some form of development, in which case it is relevant to consider the extent to which that development has eroded the sense of openness, this being whether or not there is a sense that the site within the Green Belt is still open and absent of development.
4.4 Sprawl may also be discouraged by defensible boundaries that are either natural (e.g. topography, woodland, water course) or man-made features, such as a road, railway line, or settlement edge. These may be within the site or share a boundary with it. Sites that do not contain defensible boundaries contribute towards greater openness.
Purpose 2: to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
4.5 The wording of the NPPF refers to ‘towns’, but in the context of this assessment study area the Green Belt affects a considerably smaller geographical scale, in which it is more relevant to consider the potential for merging of neighbouring settlement edges as well as distinct settlement areas that might be defined as towns. In essence, the purpose seeks to avoid coalescence of built form. This can be perceived in either plan view or ‘on the ground’ by intervening natural or man-made features.
4.6 The interpretation of ‘merging’, in terms of geographic distances, differs according to the study area. Whilst a review of distinct towns might need to account for distances over several kilometres, when considering gaps between smaller settlements, the range can be much smaller with distances reducing to as little as 100m in some cases. It is of note that susceptibility to ‘merging’ depends on the extent of openness between two settlements
13 Page 38 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
and each situation needs to be reviewed in relation to the local landscape and visual context.
Purpose 3: to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
4.7 In terms of Green Belt, the ‘countryside’ is the landscape outside of the current development limits, and which is generally defined by key characteristics such as hedgerow networks, varying field patterns, presence/absence of woodland, downland character, topographical features or open space, etc. Countryside is likely to be undeveloped land that is typically rural and often managed for agriculture or forestry, or simply kept as an open natural or semi-natural landscape. However, it may contain man- made features such as historic landmarks or isolated properties, or even larger areas of settlement.
4.8 This assessment is based on the key landscape characteristics of the site and its surroundings, as well as the visual context as described in Section 3.
4.9 Sites that are highly representative of the key landscape characteristics and exhibit them in good condition, make a stronger contribution towards safeguarding the countryside than land that is less representative of the landscape character area or contains features that are in poorer condition. This allows a qualitative ‘value’ element to be applied to Green Belt land.
4.10 The matter of ‘encroachment’ is also a judgement that considers whether or not built form (such as residential development and/or related urbanising features such as street lighting, road signs, road infrastructure, etc.) is found in the site or affects it and also the degree to which it has preserved the key characteristics or severed them from the wider countryside. A site that has limited or no urbanising influences has a stronger role in safeguarding countryside.
4.11 Finally, encroachment can also be prohibited by the presence or absence of particular natural or man-made features that separate existing settlement edges from the wider countryside. Typically, it is large man-made features such as dual carriageways, or motorways, natural features might include woodland, large water bodies such as lakes and rivers or deep, steeply sloped valleys. Such features may border a site or be contained wholly or partially within it.
4.12 However, natural features in particular, including woodland, rivers or ridgelines, may suffer a loss of their integrity as prominent features within the landscape if development is progressed upon, or near, them. These features should therefore be safeguarded.
Purpose 4: to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
4.13 The subject of setting and special character in the context of heritage assets should be examined on a site by site basis, by specialist heritage consultants. However, the CA local heritage designation allows the assessment to acknowledge that historic cores exist. For
14 Page 39 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
this study area, such historic cores may once have been part of separate ‘towns’, but now form part of the same suburban context.
Purpose 5: to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
4.14 As all of the land being considered as part of the consultation exercise is Green Belt and not derelict urban land, this purpose is not considered further in this assessment.
Methodology
4.15 EDP have developed a methodology for Green Belt Assessment, which is based on landscape and visual assessment methodology with regard to the purposes of the Green Belt and our experience of Green Belt reviews.
4.16 The site is scored against the criteria listed for each purpose as shown in Appendix EDP 1, with criteria scoring set out in Table EDP 4.1 below.
Table EDP 4.1: Scoring Criteria Score Contribution to the Green Belt Purpose 1 No contribution 2 Limited contribution 3 Strong contribution
4.17 The grading of overall scores reflect the contribution the site makes towards meeting the purposes of the Green Belt. This ensures that, whilst the NPPF does not require all five purposes, or tests, to be met simultaneously, the extent to which a site contributes to the criterion of a specific purpose will better inform the decision for it to be removed from the Green Belt, or retained within it.
4.18 The findings are presented in the Green Belt Assessment Table in Appendix EDP 2.
4.19 This assessment does not include consideration of the potential of the site to address all NPPF paragraphs relating to the Green Belt. This is however provided as part of the planning statement supporting the information submitted to the LPA.
4.20 The findings demonstrate that, out of a maximum score of 21, which would indicate that a site would be performing a strong role in achieving all Green Belt purposes, (and a minimum score of 7) the site scores 9 which could be described as making a limited contribution.
4.21 A summary discussion of the findings in relation to each of the first four purposes is provided below.
15 Page 40 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Purpose 1: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
4.22 This assessment considered how the site and its features contributed towards the openness of the Green Belt and the potential to create a permanent boundary, should it be taken out of the designation. Redevelopment of the site would contribute towards increasing the built form but there would be no reduction in perceived openness as the open land within the site is not visible to the public other than a glimpse through the security gate at the field entrance. There would therefore be no reduction in the sense of openness experienced in views towards the settlement edge.
4.23 The site is bordered by strong defensible boundaries on all sides and development would not therefore increase susceptibility to unrestricted sprawl.
Purpose 2: to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
4.24 With reference to the site assessment in Volume 5 of the draft Green Belt Part 2 as noted in Section 2 above, particular consideration was given to the potential for merging with neighbouring towns.
4.25 Firstly, it is noted that existing development off Heath Road to the north of the A40 is already present as an extension to Holtspur, Beaconsfield further to the west than the site. This already serves to reduce the gap between Holtspur, Beaconsfield and High Wycombe, and development of the site would not reduce that gap any further.
4.26 Secondly, development of the site would not bring the settlement of Holtspur, Beaconsfield closer to Wooburn Green, the closest distance between the two, currently being around 460m (between properties off Heath Road in Holtspur and properties on Stokesley Rise in Wooburn Green), and the closest distance between the site and the edge of Wooburn Green being around 560m.
4.27 Furthermore, there would be no change in the perceived gap between the settlements as the site is so well enclosed by tree belts, particularly along the full length of the Wooburn Green Road. This, together with the sense of separation brought by the M40 and further tree belts and topography beyond to the south, are such that it is considered there would be no merging of the settlements. Purpose 3: to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
4.28 In landscape character terms, the site does not display typical characteristics of open countryside, being visually screened from its surroundings and more closely related to the settlement edge than the more open countryside beyond the M40 to the south. This is confirmed by the LPA’s assessment in Appendix 5 of the draft Green Belt Assessment Part Two, which recognises that despite none of the site being covered by built development, it retains an urban character given the proximity of the built up area to the north and the urbanising influence of the M40.
16 Page 41 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Purpose 4: to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
4.29 The Beaconsfield Old Town CA, Wooburn Green CA, Clapton Mill CA and Watery Lane CA all lie within 2km of the site. However, the site is separated, both physically and visually, from these historic cores by more recent c20th development to the east, the M40, woodland and topographical intervention to the west and south-west, such that development of the site would not have an influence on the setting of these historic cores. The Council’s assessment affirms this by stating that “This sub-parcel does not abut an identified historic settlement core.”.
4.30 Thanks to the site’s existing containment and the physical boundary of the M40 corridor directly to the south, development of the site will not have any influence on the character of the historic core of Wooburn Green to the south west.
4.31 For all of these reasons it is considered that the site could reasonably be removed from the Green Belt and developed in accordance with the principles proposed in the illustrative layout without harm to the integrity of the Green Belt overall.
17 Page 42 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
This page has been left blank intentionally
18 Page 43 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Section 5 Conclusions
5.1 This briefing paper has provided an overview of the landscape and visual aspects of the site, which lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt, and provided landscape evidence of the suitability of the site for sustainable development in this regard.
5.2 This preliminary landscape and visual appraisal finds that the character of the site is heavily influenced by both settlement and transport routes as well as the roadside boundary vegetation, which serves to enclose it visually from its surroundings. Therefore, the site makes no contribution to the ‘rural’ or countryside character of the local area. It is considered that development of the site could occur with minimal visual effect if desired, development sitting behind the dense boundary vegetation on all four sides.
5.3 The landscape and visual based assessment of how the site and its features contribute towards the purposes of the Green Belt is summarised below:
Purpose 1 –there would be no reduction in perceived openness as the open land within the site is not visible to the public other than a glimpse through the security gate at the field entrance. The site is bordered by strong defensible boundaries on all sides and development would not therefore increase susceptibility to unrestricted sprawl;
Purpose 2 – development of the site would not bring the settlement of Holtspur, Beaconsfield closer to Wooburn Green, the closest distance between the two, currently being around 460m and the closest distance between the site and the edge of Wooburn Green being around 560m. This, together with the sense of separation brought by the M40 and further tree belts and topography beyond to the south, are such that it is considered there would be no merging of the settlements;
Purpose 3 – the site does not display typical characteristics of open countryside, being visually screened from its surroundings and more closely related to the settlement edge than the more open countryside beyond the M40 to the south; and
Purpose 4 – due to the site’s existing containment and intervening development, topography and woodland, development of the site will not alter the character or setting of the historic cores of any of the settlements in the locality.
5.4 Thus it is considered that the site could reasonably be removed from the Green Belt and developed in accordance with the principles proposed in the illustrative layout without harm to the integrity of the Green Belt overall.
19 Page 44 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
This page has been left blank intentionally
20 Page 45 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Appendix EDP 1 Assessment Methodology and Criteria
Page 46 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
This page has been left blank intentionally
Page 47 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
NPPF Para 80 Green Criteria Application of Criteria to Site and Criteria Score Belt Purpose
Purpose 1 Creates a clear, recognisable distinction between urban fringe and Does the site form a contiguous open buffer between the existing settlement edge and the wider countryside? To check the open countryside. unrestricted sprawl of a. Yes, the site is free of development and associated influences and strongly contributes to the openness of the Green Belt large built-up areas (score: 3); b. There is an absence of development within the site but it is overlooked by adjacent/nearby development (score: 2); and c. No, the site contains development and/or does not clearly define a distinction between the settlement edge and the open countryside (score: 1).
Defensible boundaries have a role in limiting unrestricted sprawl as Does the site have a defensible boundary which can prevent sprawl? they create the boundaries to Green Belt parcels. These may be within the site or form part of its boundary. Such boundaries can be a. The site does not have a defensible boundary and therefore openness is greater (score: 3); permanent, such as roads, steep topography, woodland or require b. The site has a defensible boundary/boundaries, which would need additional reinforcement (score: 2); and additional reinforcement such as hedgerows and streams. Fences do c. The site has a defensible boundary/boundaries, which do not require additional reinforcement (score: 1). not form defensible boundaries.
Purpose 2 Settlements maintain a clear and sinuous edge. Is the site well associated with the existing settlement edge? To prevent neighbouring towns a. The site is isolated from the settlement boundary and appears divorced from it (score: 3); merging into one b. The site abuts one settlement boundary but is not divorced from it (score: 2); and another c. The site abuts two or more settlement boundaries and therefore forms part of an indent (score: 1).
Prevent loss or noticeable reduction in distance between Given the distance between the whole of the site and next nearest settlement edge, what is the effect of the perceived and towns/settlement edges; this may also be affected by agricultural land actual intervisibility or potential for coalescence? use or topography: a larger distance or more prominent topographical change would be better capable of accommodating a. Immediate and clear intervisibility with next nearest settlement edge (score: 3); change than a narrow gap. b. Partial visual association with next nearest settlement edges (score: 2); and c. Limited or no visual association with next nearest settlement edges (score: 1). The gaps may contain different elements, be it natural (e.g. topography, woodland, agricultural land or large open spaces) or man-made features, which prevent merging.
Purpose 3 The countryside comprises ‘key characteristics’ which define the To what extent does the site represent the key characteristics of the countryside? To assist in landscape and the way it is perceived, both visually and physically. safeguarding the a. The site is strongly representative of the key characteristics and clearly connects with off-site key characteristics. (score: 3); countryside from b. The site comprises some representative key characteristics but there are few connections with off-site characteristics encroachment (score: 2); and c. The site comprises little or no key characteristics and there is limited or no connection with off-site characteristics (score: 1).
Encroachment: features such as speed signage and street lighting To what extent is the site urbanised, either by on-site or off-site features? affect the extent to which the countryside changes from rural to urban. a. There are no urbanising features within the site or directly influencing it (score: 3); b. There are several urbanising features affecting the site (score: 2); and c. There are many urbanising features affecting the site, which reduces its representativeness of the countryside (score: 1).
Page 48 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
NPPF Para 80 Green Criteria Application of Criteria to Site and Criteria Score Belt Purpose
Purpose 4 In the absence of professional judgement on setting and special The proximity of the site to the CA must also be balanced with the nature of intervisibility with the historic core of the CA, as To preserve the character on a site-by-site basis by heritage consultants, the criteria this is a reflection of the extent to which the CA designation and its boundaries still applies: setting and special considers the proximity of the site to a Conservation Area (CA) which character of historic relates to the historic character of a town. a. The site shares a boundary with the CA or is partially or wholly within it and has clear intervisibility with its historic core towns (score: 3); b. The site shares a boundary with the CA or is partially or wholly within it but has limited intervisibility with its historic core (score: 2); and c. The site does not share a boundary with the CA and/or there is no intervisibility with its historic core (score: 1).
Page 49 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Appendix EDP 2 Green Belt Analysis
Page 50 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
This page has been left blank intentionally
Page 51 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
NPPF Para 80 Green Belt Application of Criteria Assessment Criteria Test Score
Purpose 1: To check the Does the site form a contiguous The site does not contain development but it is almost entirely contained 2 unrestricted sprawl of open buffer between the existing on all sides by mature boundary vegetation. large built-up areas settlement edge and the other There is no visual connection to other settlement areas beyond Little settlement areas/wider countryside Chalfont.
Are there any defensible There are defensible boundaries on all sides – M40 to the south, Broad 1 boundaries? Lane to the east and Wooburn Green Lane to the west.
Purpose 2: To prevent Is the site well associated with the The site abuts the settlement edge along its northern boundary. 2 neighbouring towns existing settlement edge? merging into one another What is the intervisibility with the There is no intervisibility with the next nearest settlement edge of Wooburn 1 next nearest settlement edge? Green to the south-west.
Purpose 3: To assist in How representative is the site of the The site is moderately representative of the key characteristics of the LCA 1 safeguarding the key characteristics of the on account of its fragmented nature, but it does not display key countryside from countryside? characteristics of the wider countryside, its central hedgerow having been encroachment; removed and the land no longer in agricultural use.
What is the influence of urbanising The site is urbanised by the adjacent settlement edge, surrounding roads 1 features? and the M40 that is audibly very evident. The security gate also contributes to the urban character as do the metal railings which line the western boundary.
Page 52 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Purpose 4: To preserve the Is there potential for intervisibility There is no intervisibility between the site and the nearest Conservation 1 setting and special with an historic core? Area. character of historic towns;
9
Page 53 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Plans
Plan EDP 1 Landscape Designations and Considerations (EDP3758/01a 09 December 2016 EB/FM)
Plan EDP 2 Photoviewpoint Locations (EDP3758/04 07 December 2016 EB/FM)
Page 54 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
This page has been left blank intentionally
Page 55 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Page 56 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Page 57 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
Photoviewpoints
Photoviewpoint EDP 1 View from A40 between Woodburn Green Lane and Holtspur Top Lane looking south east
Photoviewpoint EDP 2 View from A40 west of Broad Lane looking south west
Photoviewpoint EDP 3 View from bridge over M40 on Broad Lane (also route of The Chilternway long distance footpath) looking west
Photoviewpoint EDP 4 View from bridge over M40 on Woodburn Green Lane looking north east
Photoviewpoint EDP 5 View from A40 north of South Drive looking west (EDP3758/03a 09 December 2016 JTF/FM)
Page 58 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) Land South of Holtspur Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation Response – Landscape and Visual Matters L_EDP3758_01a
This page has been left blank intentionally
Page 59 of 91 CLASSIFICATION:Photoviewpoint EDP OFFICIAL 1: View from A40 between Wooburn Green Lane and Holtspur Top Lane looking south east PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Northern boundary vegetation Security gate at site entrance on A40
Photoviewpoint EDP 2: View from A40 west of Broad Lane looking south west
Boundary vegetation A40 prevents views into site
VP Location:VP Bearing: Distance to Site: Date Taken: Lens: Viewing Distance: Date 09 DECEMBER 2016 Project title: Land South of Holtspur THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION PARTNERSHIP Drawing number EDP3758/03a Tithe Barn, Barnsley Park Estate, Barnsley, Cirencester, Drawn by LH Client: Inland Homes plc Gloucestershire, GL7 5EG t 01285 740427 f 01285 740848 PVP X: XXXXXX,XXXXXX XX° X.Xkm 05/05/15 50mm 300mm Checked by FM e [email protected] www.edp-uk.co.uk PVP X: XXXXXX,XXXXXX XX° X.Xkm 05/05/15 50mm 300mm Drawing Title: Photoviewpoints EDP 1 and 2 QA LB Page 60 of 91 © Environmental Dimension Partnership. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673 This sheet has been exported at low quality. High resolution copies are also available upon request CLASSIFICATION:Photoviewpoint EDP OFFICIAL 3: View from bridge over M40 on Broad Lane (also route of The Chilternway long distance footpath) looking west PORep1904 (REDACTED)
M40 Southern boundary of site Eastern boundary of site Broad Lane west
Photoviewpoint EDP 4: View from bridge over M40 on Wooburn Green Lane looking north east
Western boundary of site Wooburn Green Lane Southern boundary of site A40
VP Location:VP Bearing: Distance to Site: Date Taken: Lens: Viewing Distance: Date 09 DECEMBER 2016 Project title: Land South of Holtspur THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION PARTNERSHIP Drawing number EDP3758/03a Tithe Barn, Barnsley Park Estate, Barnsley, Cirencester, Drawn by LH Client: Inland Homes plc Gloucestershire, GL7 5EG t 01285 740427 f 01285 740848 PVP X: XXXXXX,XXXXXX XX° X.Xkm 05/05/15 50mm 300mm Checked by FM e [email protected] www.edp-uk.co.uk PVP X: XXXXXX,XXXXXX XX° X.Xkm 05/05/15 50mm 300mm Drawing Title: Photoviewpoints EDP 3 and 4 QA LB Page 61 of 91 © Environmental Dimension Partnership. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673 This sheet has been exported at low quality. High resolution copies are also available upon request CLASSIFICATION:Photoviewpoint EDP OFFICIAL 5: View from A40 north of South Drive looking west PORep1904 (REDACTED)
VP Location:VP Bearing: Distance to Site: Date Taken: Lens: Viewing Distance: Date 09 DECEMBER 2016 Project title: Land South of Holtspur THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION PARTNERSHIP Drawing number EDP3758/03a Tithe Barn, Barnsley Park Estate, Barnsley, Cirencester, Drawn by LH Client: Inland Homes plc Gloucestershire, GL7 5EG t 01285 740427 f 01285 740848 PVP X: XXXXXX,XXXXXX XX° X.Xkm 05/05/15 50mm 300mm Checked by FM e [email protected] www.edp-uk.co.uk PVP X: XXXXXX,XXXXXX XX° X.Xkm 05/05/15 50mm 300mm Drawing Title: Photoviewpoint EDP 5 QA LB Page 62 of 91 © Environmental Dimension Partnership. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673 This sheet has been exported at low quality. High resolution copies are also available upon request CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION PARTNERSHIP
CIRENCESTER (Head Office) CARDIFF SHREWSBURY Tithe Barn First Floor The Stables Barnsley Park Estate The Bonded Warehouse Sansaw Business Park Barnsley, Cirencester Atlantic Wharf Hadnall, Shrewsbury Gloucestershire GL7 5EG Cardiff CF10 4HF Shropshire SY4 4AS t 01285 740427 t 029 21671900 t 01939 211190
e [email protected] www.edp-uk.co.uk
The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd Registered as a Limited Company in England and Wales, Company No. 09102431
Page 63 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Appendix 4 - Indicative Access Design
Page 64 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL
Bus Stop Shelter
Existing Junction Layout F=2.4m
Visibility Distance D, 40m Design Drawings, the position of services is Design Risk Assessment are based on the Regulation 9. Drawing Status: relation to managing projects position of any services before commencing parties at the time of design and is for based on information provided by other information available at the time of purposes. It is the responsibility of reference to the CDM Regulations 2015; Key:- CDM 2015 Regulations: Client duties in Client Duties: Client and Contractor to verify the exact design (drawing date) Where shown on PJA associated with the construction stage and contractor and client to identify risks and are not to be used for construction Notes:- These drawings have been produced with works on site. guidance only. It is the responsibility of These Drawings are for planning approvals The client is directed to Regulation 4 of the The risks identified on the PJA Scheme to design appropriate measures mitigate. Rev / Date PORep1904 Reading, RG1 2AN Unit 16 The Aquarium, 1-7 King Street, [email protected] Tel: 01189560909 www.philjonesassociates.co.uk Land South of Beaconsfield .Visibility Splays (2.4m x 40m) 1. Indicative Access Design Table 6/1 taken from DMRB, TD54/07, Visibility Splays Inland Homes AH MF 01 23/11/2016 23/11/2016 Description Page (REDACTED) 65 1:500 @ A3 of Drn Chck'd A 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
A VISION FOR LAND SOUTH OF BEACONSFIELD
ON BEHALF OF INLAND HOMES JULY 2016 Page 66 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
A VISION FOR LAND SOUTH OF BEACONSFIELD
ON BEHALF OF INLAND HOMES
Page 67 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
INTRODUCTION 1
THE CHALLENGE 3
THE OPPORTUNITY 5 CONTENTS MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREEN BELT 9 DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 13
THE EMERGING VISION 15
THE CONCEPT PROPOSALS 17
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 21
© Broadway Malyan 2016 Page 68 of 91 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) INTRODUCTION
STATUS PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This document has been prepared by Broadway This document demonstrates how some of the Malyan and Carter Jonas on behalf of Inland Homes. issues and challenges identified in the emerging It should be read in conjunction with the Vision for Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan and East and South Beaconsfield document prepared Beaconsfield Town Plan can be addressed through by Carter Jonas and submitted to South Bucks the delivery of a high quality housing scheme District Council in response to the Local Plan Initial (with associated open space) on Land south Consultation (March 2016). of Beaconsfield. Inland Homes are working closely with the The proposals presented within this document build landowner, and together, control all of the land upon the wider vision for land at East and South needed to deliver the proposals set out in Beaconsfield (as set out in Vision for East and South this Vision document. Beaconsfield) and are intended to assist South Bucks and Chiltern District Councils in drafting the The proposals presented within this latest Vision Preferred Options version of the Local Plan. document will evolve as further technical work is completed and as further progress is made with In particular, this Vision document sets out the the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan. opportunity to sustainably deliver additional housing on land that makes a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. This Vision document sets out the opportunity to It is important to emphasise that the proposals set out in this document are very much work in sustainably deliver additional progress, and that Inland Homes are committed housing on land that makes to a full and effective programme of community a limited contribution to the engagement – as the proposals progress through the planning process. purposes of the Green Belt.
Aerial view of thePage site 69 of 91 1 I A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
THE SITE
Aerial view of the site Page 70 of 91 A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield I 2 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) THE CHALLENGE
CHILTERN AND SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICTS HAVE REACHED A At a strategic level, the Local Plan Issues and ‘CROSSROADS’. ON THE ONE HAND THERE IS INCREASING Options consultation document (January 2016) identifies a need for some 15,100 new dwellings CONCERN OVER THE IMPACT THAT URBAN INTENSIFICATION IS and an additional 15 hectares of employment HAVING ON THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICTS’ SETTLEMENTS, land. Land at East and South Beaconsfield has been identified by the Councils in the consultation WHILST ON THE OTHER, THERE IS AN ACCEPTED NEED TO document as a ‘built area extension option’ and DELIVER NEW HOUSING AND ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY ‘employment area of search’ – recognising the existing built form and the locational advantages INFRASTRUCTURE TO MEET IDENTIFIED NEEDS. of the land, adjacent to the largest and most sustainable settlement in South Bucks.
Windsor End Orchard Green by Cala Homes North Drive Houses Page 71 of 91 3 I A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
The Vision for East and South Beaconsfield • How to accommodate further development, document, prepared on behalf of Inland Homes, whilst protecting the character and ‘sense’ We want to see Beaconsfield helps demonstrate how the combined land of place’ of our towns and villages. developed in a coherent and area East and South of Beaconsfield could be • Where to accommodate new housing, along sensitive manner, to nurture comprehensively developed to deliver a high with the necessary supporting infrastructure. what we have, meet the needs quality mixed use scheme, contributing to the requirements for new housing and employment • How to ensure that existing and new and aspirations of our diverse provision, whilst at the same time delivering development is made more sustainable. community, and enhance the significant new supporting community infrastructure. green environment… Towards a Town Plan for Beaconsfield It is within this wider context that this Vision for (July 2015) – Prepared by Vision for Beaconsfield, Towards a Town Plan for Beaconsfield Land south of Beaconsfield sets out the opportunity this document identifies a number of local to sustainably deliver additional housing and challenges and issues, including – open space, addressing key local planning issues and objectives. • How to ensure Beaconsfield has a Emerging Local Plan - The Issues and Option coherent identity and avoids becoming consultation document (January 2016) highlights the just another commuter town. LOCAL PLANNING ISSUES need for some 15,100 new dwellings in South Bucks • How to create more community facilities and Chiltern Districts and emphasises the importance Core Strategy - The South Bucks Core Strategy and improve access to sport and leisure. of ensuring delivery of necessary new infrastructure. (adopted February 2011) identifies a number of issues, problems and challenges. Those particularly • How to manage the intense development Proposals for the development of land south of pertinent to the Vision for Land south of pressures that are threatening to erode the Beaconsfield should respond to the aforementioned Beaconsfield include - distinctive character of Beaconsfield. local planning issues and objectives, as well as • How to deal with traffic congestion and to the site specific opportunities afforded by the • How to reduce traffic problems, pressures on local infrastructure. site and its location. including congestion. • How to improve walking and • How to improve accessibility to cycling opportunities. facilities and services.
Page 72 of 91 A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield I 4 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) THE OPPORTUNITY
LAND SOUTH OF BEACONSFIELD
The land south of Beaconsfield lies immediately To the south, off Wooburn Green Lane are located Beaconsfield New Town and Old Town, and the adjacent to the existing residential area of Holtspur. It sports fields, only a minute walk from the site. community uses proposed in and around Wilton is bound by the A40 to the north, Green Lane to the Park would be accessible by bus, and would also east, the M40 to the south and Wooburn Green Lane To the north (within Holtspur) is a selection of further be within reasonable cycling distance of the site. to the west. facilities all within a 5 minute walk. These include Beaconsfield Cycle Path Action Group has assisted a small Spar, café and sandwich shop by the petrol in ensuring completion of a cycle route from Holtspur The site extends to some 6 hectares. There is filling station across the A40, along with a Harvester Top Lane to the centre of Beaconsfield New Town. currently no public access into the site, and mature public house and restaurant. There is a parade of boundaries severely restrict views into the site shops off Holtspur Top Lane / Heath Road, less than In summary, new housing development on Land from surrounding public vantage points. The site is a 2 minute walk away, and more shops (including a south of Beaconsfield would be within easy walking broadly level, apart from at its southern boundary, convenience store) off Mayflower Way. and cycling distance of a wide range of facilities where there is a steep bank down towards the M40. and services. The development would make best Other facilities include playing fields, a church use of existing public transport services, with a Access into the site is currently off the A40, with and community hall also within a 5 minute walk. frequent bus service suitable for accessing higher potential for secondary accesses off Broad Lane Holtspur primary and pre-school and a sports hall order destinations, for shopping, recreation and and Wooburn Green Lane. / theatre and youth club are located less than employment purposes. a 10 minute walk away. ACCESSIBILITY TO LOCAL Improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists FACILITIES AND SERVICES crossing the A40 would help to ensure the Objective T2 - to encourage Beaconsfield is firmly recognised as the largest integration of development on Land south of more walking and cycling in and most sustainable settlement in South Bucks Beaconsfield with the existing built form. District, with a very good rail service to London and town with a long term view to Birmingham, frequent bus services along the A40 The bus stops immediately adjacent to the site increase the health of residents and excellent access to the strategic road network. (off the A40) provide frequent services between and decrease the number of High Wycombe and Beaconsfield Old Town (and car journeys made… The Land south of Beaconsfield is conveniently destinations beyond), with the hours of operation located for access to the good range of local facilities making the services suitable for commuting Towards a Town Plan for Beaconsfield and services available in and around Holtspur. purposes. There are a wide range of employment destinations along the A40 towards High Wycombe, as well as within High Wycombe centre. Page 73 of 91 5 I A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Holtspur Sports Hall and Theatre
Mayflower Way shops
Holtspur Top Lane / Heath Road shops Facilities and services plan Page 74 of 91 A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield I 6 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
SITE LOCATION PLAN WITH VIEWS
Page 75 of 91 7 I A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
View 1
The site
View 2 View 3 View 4
New Development - Kings Close Roundabout A40 / Holtspur Top Lane Petrol Filling Station and Shops
View 5 View 6 View 7 View 8
A40 Looking West Broad Lane and A40 Junction Wooburn Green Lane Bridge Over M40 - South West Corner
Page 76 of 91 A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield I 8 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREEN BELT
To enable sustainable development on the Land The Green Belt Assessment (Part 1) ARUP (January GREEN BELT ASSESSMENT south of Beaconsfield, the land will need to be 2016) divides the two Districts into a number of The Green Belt Assessment suggests that removed from the Green Belt. The Chiltern and South land parcels, and provides an assessment of the Land Parcel 53a forms part of the essential gap Bucks Issues and Options consultation (January contribution each land parcel makes to the between Beaconsfield and High Wycombe, 2016) confirms that given the overall level of housing purposes of the Green Belt. preventing development that would significantly need in the Districts, and the limited scope for reduce the perceived and actual distance development within existing settlements, there are Land south of Beaconsfield falls within Land Parcel between these settlements. the necessary exceptional circumstances to 53a, that extends to the west of the subject site as trigger a Green Belt review. far as the built-up edge of High Wycombe. It is agreed that the western part of Parcel 53a forms part of the strategic gap between the two settlements. However, the Land south of Beaconsfield does not contribute to this gap, being further to the east. The gap between Beaconsfield and High Wycombe to the west is approximately 1.0km at its narrowest point. Development of the land off Broad Lane would not reduce this physical gap, and nor would it reduce the perceived gap, with the existing built-up edge of Beaconsfield (north of the A40) continuing further to the west.
The gap between Beaconsfield and High Wycombe is well defined when heading west on the A40 out of Beaconsfield. There is an extensive and mature tree belt extending to a distance of approximately 1.0km through which the A40 forms a cutting.
Green Belt Assessment – Land Parcel 53a Page 77 of 91 9 I A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
A40 tree lined corridor, separating Beaconsfield and High Wycombe
Page 78 of 91 A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield I 10 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREEN BELT
Removing the Land south of Beaconsfield from the Green Belt for development would also not reduce the physical gap between Beaconsfield and High Wycombe (Wooburn Moor) to the south. At its narrowest point, the existing gap between Beaconsfield and Wooburn Moor is approximately 0.45km. From the very edge of the Land off Broad Lane to nearest part of Wooburn Moor is some 0.55km. As importantly, intervening topography, trees and mature site boundaries prevent any opportunities for views between Beaconsfield and Wooburn Moor, and there is a very distinct sense that one is leaving Beaconsfield before arriving at Wooburn Moor / Wooburn Green. This sense of leaving one settlement and arriving at another would not change following development of Land south of Beaconsfield.
The M40 would provide a clear and defensible Green Belt boundary to the south, and Wooburn Green Lane would provide a clear and defensible Green Belt boundary to the west, removing the risk of sprawl, and preserving the existing actual and perceived separation distances between Beaconsfield and High Wycombe and Beaconsfield and Wooburn Moor / Wooburn Green.
Wooburn Green Lane – green corridor south of the M40 Page 79 of 91 11 I A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
IN SUMMARY WHEN LAND SOUTH OF BEACONSFIELD IS ASSESSED IN ISOLATION FROM THE OTHER LAND IN GENERAL AREA 53A TO THE WEST, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT MAKES A LIMITED CONTRIBUTION TO THE PURPOSES OF THE GREEN BELT. A NEW DURABLE GREEN BELT BOUNDARY COULD BE DEFINED USING THE M40 TO THE SOUTH AND WOOBURN GREEN LANE TO THE WEST, WHICH WOULD PRESERVE THE SEPARATION BETWEEN BEACONSFIELD AND HIGH WYCOMBE, PREVENT FURTHER OUTWARD SPRAWL AND HELP TO CONSERVE OTHER AREAS OF COUNTRYSIDE IN THE DISTRICTS WITH A GREATER SENSE OF RURALITY.
Despite pockets of openness, the sense of rurality in general area 53a is diminished by the presence of the M40 and the influence of the Beaconsfield / Knotty Green large built-up area to the north… Green Belt Assessment (Part 1) ARUP
Looking north on Wooburn Green Lane – scope to create a new durable Green Belt boundary Page 80 of 91 A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield I 12 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT LAND SOUTH OF BEACONSFIELD IS SUSTAINABLY LOCATED, WITH OPTIONS TO WALK, CYCLE OR USE PUBLIC TRANSPORT TO ACCESS A WIDE RANGE OF FACILITIES, SERVICES AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES.
In terms of site-specific considerations – A sensitive development that retains the boundary Land south of Beaconsfield also benefits from planting can be readily accommodated in ecological possible vehicular access points to the east (onto Trees and Ecology – The land does not fall within, terms (thereby relieving development pressure on Broad Lane) and to the west (onto Wooburn Green or lie immediately adjacent to, any known statutory more ecologically sensitive areas of land). Lane). Visibility is afforded at both locations for or non-statutory nature conservation designations. the provision of a standard priority junction. Highways and Access – The roundabout to the The land parcel largely comprises semi-improved southeast of the Harvester Public House could Noise and Air Quality – There are potential traffic grassland and scattered scrub, likely to be of be signalised and enlarged, using highways land noise and air quality issues associated with the M40 no more than low ecological value. Hedgerows, and land controlled by Inland Homes. As well as to the south of the site. A buffer zone, potentially semi-mature tree lines, and areas of tree cover providing a fourth arm to serve as the principal site incorporating an acoustic barrier, will need to be bound the site, and it these areas that are likely to access, the new roundabout could provide for safe incorporated into the development proposals. be of greater ecological value. There is a large oak pedestrian and cyclist access across the A40. in the middle of the site that should be retained.
In summary, there are no insurmountable site-specific development constraints.
Wooburn Green Lane sports fields Page 81 of 91 13 I A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Opportunities and constraints plan Page 82 of 91 A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield I 14 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) THE EMERGING VISION
INTRODUCTION STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES The emerging Local Plan and early work undertaken for the Beaconsfield The following strategic development objectives Town Plan identify a number of very have been distilled from the emerging Local Plan and real challenges facing South Bucks ‘Creating a Better Beaconsfield’ document. There District and Beaconsfield Town. There will be many more detailed objectives and issues to are tensions between delivering new consider in due course, but the following strategic housing along with new facilities objectives have been used as the key drivers for the and services, whilst at the same time emerging vision for the Land south of Beaconsfield. protecting and enhancing both the built and natural environment. Delivering Homes for Local People Development of a range of housing types Inland Homes believe that within the ü context of the wider Vision for East ü Creation of communities, with a real and South Beaconsfield, the Land sense of place south of Beaconsfield presents an important opportunity to sustainably Improved Access to Community Infrastructure deliver additional housing on land that makes a limited contribution to the ü Improved accessibility to sport, recreation purposes of the Green Belt. and other community facilities Encourage stronger community cohesion The ideas presented below are in ü no way fixed – they are presented Greening Beaconsfield and Protecting to stimulate further discussion and and Enhancing Character show the potential that exists on Land south of Beaconsfield to contribute ü Delivery of sustainable development, with towards local housing needs. encouragement given to walking, cycling and use of public transport ü Protect and enhance the character of Beaconsfield
Concept masterplan Page 83 of 91 15 I A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Page 84 of 91 A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield I 16 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) THE CONCEPT PROPOSALS
IN PRODUCING THIS VISION FOR A RESIDENTIAL SCHEME ON LAND SOUTH OF BEACONSFIELD, CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE AFOREMENTIONED STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES, AS WELL AS TO A NUMBER OF SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS.
The concept proposals provide for: Creation of a layout with a sense of ‘place’ - The overarching principle of the layout is to provide an Retention of the perimeter tree groups - The elegant formality. Gateway apartment buildings approach will be to retain the tree screening are proposed either side of the road access into character of the perimeter, albeit with careful the site. This then opens up into a good size public clearance of the understorey and other measures open space containing a local equipped area for to ensure public safety. The large oak tree in the play (LEAP) and the existing oak tree fronted by a middle of the site is retained and is intended diverse range of house types. as a centrepiece to the public open space. Either side of this the structure is based on A new vehicular access into the site – The vision a residential street loop with the courtyard proposes enlargement of the existing roundabout development fronting the southern elevation. on the A40, providing a new access into the site. A further secondary access is proposed to the east A permeable and accessible development – The off Broad Lane, which may or may not be for concept provides for the easy and safe movement emergency use only. of pedestrians and cyclists within and beyond the site. The enlarged roundabout on the A40 will 3D Model aerial view from west Mitigation of noise impacts from traffic on the M40 incorporate a crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, - The M40 motorway is located down a 5m steep providing access to local facilities, services and bank on the southern boundary of the site. Traffic public transport options, by non-car modes. on the M40 is a source of noise and air pollution. The concept approach is to set the building blocks back, using the buffer space as a parking court. Furthermore, the development blocks are designed to form a quiet courtyard, acting in effect as a noise barrier for the housing to the north.
Public open space with LEAP Page 85 of 91 17 I A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Indicative framework plan Page 86 of 91 A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield I 18 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) THE CONCEPT PROPOSALS
A VARIED MIX, PARKING ACHIEVED THROUGH Masterplan Key SENSITIVELY SCALED A VARIETY OF CONFIGURATIONS The layout in this vision proposes a range of unit A mixture of parking solutions are proposed to 1. Public Open Space sizes, from 1 bedroom flats to 4 bedroom houses. suit different areas of the layout and avoid significant 2. Local equipped area for play Within this mix, opportunities have been taken to numbers of on-street spaces. Where on-street create varied house and apartment types, so that parking is proposed landscaping treatment using 3. Enlarged roundabout small groups of units form unique designs within trees and shrubs is used to diminish its impact. with new access the layout. The scale of the buildings has been On curtilage, car port, parking court and 90 degree 4. Gateway apartment buildings sensitively considered. Generally, the houses and parking are utilised. apartments are 2 or 2.5 storeys, with the potential for 5. Network of new public some of the apartment buildings to be 3 storeys to footpaths and cycle add emphasis in key locations. The proposals show routes to integrate with capacity for up to approximately 200 dwellings on surrounding facilities a 6 hectare site, which gives a gross development 6. Secondary access density of about 33 dwellings per hectare. 7. Homezone style pedestrian The concept proposal are intended to stimulate priority street discussion, and the actual form and mix of 8. Primary boulevard access development will be dependent on further site through the site assessment work and the housing policies of the emerging Joint Local Plan. 9. Wooburn Green Lane sports field 10. Courtyard apartment block 11. Retained perimeter trees 12. Steep bank down to M40 – Potential for noise barrier 13. Bus Shelter 14. Petrol filling station and shops
Entrance view Homezone to the West
Page 87 of 91 19 I A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Indicative concept masterplan Page 88 of 91 A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield I 20 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED) SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY BROADWAY MALYAN AND CARTER JONAS ON BEHALF OF INLAND HOMES. ITS PURPOSE IS TO DEMONSTRATE HOW SOME OF THE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED IN THE EMERGING LOCAL PLAN AND BEACONSFIELD TOWN PLAN CAN BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE DELIVERY OF HOUSING ON LAND SOUTH OF BEACONSFIELD – WHICH IS SUSTAINABLY LOCATED AND MAKES A LIMITED CONTRIBUTION TO THE PURPOSES OF THE GREEN BELT.
IN SUMMARY:
• At a strategic level, the Joint Local Plan Issues • There are exceptional circumstances to justify and Options consultation document identifies a Green Belt boundary review – with Land south a need for an additional 15,100 new dwellings of Beaconsfield making a limited contribution in South Bucks and Chiltern Districts. to the purposes of the Green Belt, and the M40 and Wooburn Green Lane suitable for defining • New development should be focused in a new, enduring Green Belt boundary. sustainable locations – with Beaconsfield firmly recognised as the largest and most sustainable • There are no insurmountable site-specific settlement in South Bucks District. development constraints on the Land at south Beaconsfield, with options for the means of • Land south of Beaconsfield is within easy walking vehicular access into the site, and strategies and cycling distance of a wide range of facilities available to address matters relating to ecology, and services, with a frequent bus service suitable noise and air quality. for accessing higher order destinations for shopping, recreation and employment purposes. • The concept proposals demonstrate how a layout with a real ‘sense of place’ could be created, which delivers up to approximately 200 new homes, comprising a mix of 2-4 bedroom houses and 1-2 bedroom flats.
Birds eye sketch from South-EastPage of89 the ofsite 91 21 I A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
Birds eye sketch from South-East of the site Page 90 of 91 A Vision for Land South of Beaconsfield I 22 CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL PORep1904 (REDACTED)
A VISION FOR LAND SOUTH OF BEACONSFIELD
ON BEHALF OF INLAND HOMES
Page 91 of 91